Left Coast Moonbats

The NYT’s Carpetbagger blog reports on a growing movement of stuffy, clueless liberal Hollywood elitists who are taking the rare – and controversial – step of urging Oscar voters to not vote for the movie Zero Dark Thirty – which roughly documented how the US eventually found and killed the 9-11 instigator and mastermind Osama bin Laden – in any of the categories for which it was nominated. Why? Because, in their view, the movie condones ‘torture':

“I would like to condemn the movie” for making it appear that torture was effective in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, Ed Asner said in a telephone interview on Sunday morning. Mr. Asner said he and fellow actor Martin Sheen planned to join in a letter, drafted by yet another actor, David Clennon, asking fellow members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to factor in matters of conscience when casting awards votes.

“We hope that ‘Zero’ will not be honored by Academy (or Guild) members,” said a draft of the letter, which was provided by Mr. Clennon on Sunday morning.

He had already spoken publicly about the planned campaign at a Friday protest by members of the Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace.

His remarks prompted a sharp response from Amy Pascal, the co-chair of Sony Pictures Entertainment, which is releasing “Zero Dark Thirty.” “To punish an artist’s right of expression is abhorrent,” said Ms. Pascal in a statement. She also stressed, as has Kathryn Bigelow, who directed “Zero Dark Thirty,” and Mark Boal, who wrote it, that the film portrays torture, but does not advocate it.

Some say it is because Bigelow incorporated controversial scenes of enhanced interrogation. Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) member David Clennon, an actor best known for his portrayal of Miles Drentel in the ABC series “thirtysomething,” a role he reprised on “Once and Again,” wrote an op-ed on the Truth-Out.org website announcing his intention not to vote for the film in any Academy Awards category.

“Everyone who contributes skill and energy to a motion picture – including actors – shares responsibility for the impressions the picture makes and the ideas it expresses,” he said. “There’s plenty of ‘Oscar buzz’ around ‘Zero Dark Thirty.’ Several associations of film critics have awarded it their highest honors. I have watched the film (2 hours, 37 minutes). Torture is an appalling crime under any circumstances. ‘Zero’ never acknowledges that torture is immoral and criminal.”

Clennon is apparently not alone. The actor issued a press release that said actor Martin Sheen and the former head of the Screen Actors Guild, Ed Asner, were joining his call to boycott the movie and are encouraging other Academy members to take action as well. Asner also reportedly said in Clennon’s statement that “one of the brightest female directors in the business is in danger of becoming part of the system.”

[…]

But Bigelow wasn’t the only director left out of the Oscar’s Best Director lineup. Ben Affleck too was left off the nominations list for his widely-acclaimed direction of “Argo,” which also told a based-on-true-events story of a secret CIA operation, this one to extract six American diplomats out of Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis. Despite missing out on the Oscar nod, Affleck won Best Director at both the Golden Globes and last week’s Critics Choice Awards, and both he and Bigelow are up for Director’s Guild of America (DGA) Awards.

Bigelow and Affleck’s twin Oscar snubs have prompted some to wonder whether there is a broader anti-American position at play among Academy voters, and scores of fans have taken to Twitter to weigh in on the debate.

There is no “wondering” about it. There is indeed a widespread anti-American stench amongst far leftists in Hollywood, and has been for quite some time. It’s just that shunning issues like this bring it to the forefront in a way that “low information voter” types can’t ignore.

Too bad Asner, Clennon, and Sheen have their heads too far up their willfully ignorant a**es to be able to admit that enhanced interrogation techniques did indeed lead to the eventual finding and killing of Public Enemy Number One: OBL. And it all started with the water boarding of so-called 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which also stopped the LA Library Tower plot. It’s practically a matter of record, even though anti-EIT Democrats – including a gloating President Obama – desperately tried to avoid probing questions about the issue at the time.

It is clear that Asner, Sheen, and other extremist left wing nitwits in Hollywood are against what they call the “torture” of high-value terrorist detainees (even though the water boarding procedure was only used a whopping total of three times), and are in closed-minded denial about how those tactics led to the eventual demise of OBL. But even if they could be convinced that the techniques worked, they’d still be against them on “human rights” grounds – meaning that while they stood on their idiotic high horses, the LA Library Tower plot likely would have been carried out, killing an untold number of innocents in the process, and giving them a chance to do what liberals in Hollywood and outside of it do best: Blame Bush.

Which is, startlingly enough (or perhaps not so startlingly), what they’ve done with 9-11 itself: Blame Bush. Oh, you didn’t know Sheen and Asner were part of a group of Hollywood Truthers? They sure are – to the point both of them, alongside fellow Truther and actor Woody Harrelson – are starring in an upcoming moving called “September Morn” (movie poster here) which they hope will give credence to long discredited conspiracy claims about the US government being behind 9-11:

Sheen, who starred in Apocalypse Now and television’s The West Wing, has long questioned whether Islamist hijackers single-handedly brought down the Twin Towers, killing 2,605 people.

“I did not want to believe that my government could possibly be involved in such a thing, I could not live in a country that I thought could do that – that would be the ultimate betrayal,” he told an interviewer in 2007.

Sheen grew suspicious after his son Charlie, also an actor, alerted him to apparent contradictions, such as how a structure known as “Building 7″ fell.

He said: “However, there have been so many revelations that now I have my doubts, and chief among them is Building 7 – how did they rig that building so that it came down on the evening of the day?”

Asner, who has won seven Emmys, has several times urged a new investigation into 9/11. In 2010, he told an interviewer: “This country – which is the greatest, strongest country that ever existed in the world, in terms of power – supposedly had a defence that could not be penetrated all these years. But all of that was eradicated by 19 Saudi Arabians, supposedly. Some of whom didn’t even know how to fly.”

Let’s sum up: It’s a “matter of conscience” for them as “artists” to spread outright lies involving bullsh*t conspiracy theories involving 9-11 by way of a movie, but on the other hand it’s not for Kathryn Bigelow (nor Ben Affleck, for that matter) as a movie director to include references to “controversial” events that actually happened that led up to our finding and ridding the world of OBL – you know, the actual thug behind 9-11 (not the government, which was not).

Phineas Butts In: As ST mentions above, Los Angeles (where yours truly lives) was the target of a planned second wave 9/11-style attack, which could have again killed thousands — including me and people I know. The only reason it was averted was the capture and subsequent waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. He wasn’t talking prior to the use of “enhanced interrogation.” Asner and Sheen and all the other nitwits preening themselves over their self-proclaimed moral superiority can go to the Devil as far as I’m concerned. Question for Ed and Martin and the rest: How many of us were you willing to see die to keep your consciences lily-white? Sanctimonious jackasses.

A San Francisco Supervisor has proposed a public nudity ban, with exceptions to be made for sex-themed parades and festivals. The AP reports:

San Francisco’s lawmakers are voting Tuesday on whether to ban nudity in a city where anything goes, including clothes.

The ordinance would prohibit nudity in most public places. It represents an escalation of a two-year fight between a group of men who strut their stuff through the city’s famously gay Castro District and the supervisor who represents the area.

Supervisor Scott Wiener’s proposal would make it illegal for a person over the age of 5 to “expose his or her genitals, perineum or anal region on any public street, sidewalk, street median, parklet or plaza” or while using public transit.

“I don’t think having some guys taking their clothes off and hanging out seven days a week at Castro and Market Street is really what San Francisco is about. I think it’s a caricature of what San Francisco is about,” Wiener said.

Exemptions would be made for participants at permitted street fairs and parades, such as the city’s annual gay pride event and the Folsom Street Fair, which celebrates sadomasochism and other sexual subcultures.

A first offense would carry a maximum penalty of a $100 fine, but prosecutors would have authority to charge a third violation as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and a year in jail.

Wiener said he felt compelled to act after constituents complained about the naked men who gather in a small Castro plaza most days and sometimes walk the streets au naturel. He persuaded his colleagues last year to pass a law requiring a cloth to be placed between public seating and bare bottoms, but the complaints have continued.

The proposed ban predictably has produced outrage, as well as a lawsuit. Last week, about two dozen people undressed in front of City Hall and marched around the block to the amusement of gawking tourists.

Stripped down to his sunglasses and hiking boots, McCray Winpsett, 37, said he understands the disgust of residents who would prefer not to see the body modifications and sex enhancement devices sported by some of the Castro nudists. But he thinks Wiener’s prohibition goes too far in undermining a tradition “that keeps San Francisco weird.”

“A few lewd exhibitionists are really ruining it for the rest of us,” he said.

No, what’s “ruining” things in San Francisco is the “anything goes” mentality of the far left. Really – these morons think a ban on public nudity infringes on their “free speech rights” and because they believe that, a “federal lawsuit” has been filed to block the ordinance proposed by Wiener (assuming it passes). They seriously believe their “right” to walk around nude in the Castro district trumps the rights of other people living or touring the area who would like to do so without being exposed to what amounts to cheap exhibitionism from so-called ‘adults” who have never grown up. From another article on this issue:

Supervisor Scott Wiener introduced the proposal to curb undressing after residents complained about a daily gathering of naked men in Jane Warner Plaza, a square in the Castro District. He called the lawsuit a baseless “publicity stunt.”

“There’s always been occasional public nudity in San Francisco. Over the last two years it’s gone from being this quirky, occasional thing to an obnoxious, over-the-top thing,” Wiener said in an interview.

“A lot of people who live in the neighborhood are just sick of the fact that seven days a week there are men taking their pants off and displaying their genitals on our sidewalks and plaza,” he added.

[…]

San Francisco last year began requiring nudists to cover their buttocks in public and to wear clothes in restaurants. Residents say the restrictions only incited the so-called Naked Guys to grow more exhibitionist.

[…]

Dan Glazer, owner of the Hot Cookie, a Castro bakery known for genital-shaped cookies, expressed mixed emotions about the proposed ban.

He said tourists flock to the area to see the Naked Guys and snap pictures, and probably have helped his business. He also said he would hate to see limited police resources used to enforce a nudity ban.

On the other hand, he said, the nudists have crossed the line into an irritating form of exhibitionism, and were “taking advantage of our neighborhood’s openness, of the gay community’s tolerance.”

No sh*t, Sherlock.

There is a reason most of America has laws against public nudity outside of designated “nude beaches.” Why? Most people who walk around that way in places like Castro and other “free-spirited” parts of America are not trying to express “free speech rights” but instead are doing so to show out, to shock other people out of a perverse sense of narcissism, and ultimately to get laid. In the process, people who don’t want to be exposed to this nonsense are – and that includes children and women who would prefer to walk down the street window shopping and not be inadverantly flashed by private male body parts, thank you very much.

Not only that, but you have the associated health hazards that come with allowing people to walk around au naturale, especially when they sit down or “bump” into you “by accident.” I don’t have to explain that in detail to the adults reading this, but it’s obviously something SF itself took into consideration last year, which is why they now require people to wear clothes in restaurants and for their “buttocks to be covered” when sitting down.

Duh.

This is what happens when you have predominiantly liberal communities and cities that believe there should be “no boundaries” as “long as you’re not physically hurting anyone else.” Lines have to be drawn, or otherwise you will eventually have idiots who will take things too far to the point there is no turning back outside of doing a complete reversal – something predicted by opponents of “no boundaries” laws in the first place. Deep down, liberals who propose such things as striking down bans on public nudity eventually expose themselves, and not just in a physical sense but in emotional and mental senses as well – letting you know that they have the maturity level of a 14 year old. Yet they actually try to pass off such ideas as being “enlightened’ and “progressive.” In reality, it’s a juvenile mindset that is harmful to serious-minded people (adults) who have no problems with people being “free-spirted” as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others to enjoy their towns and cities free from worry over being exposed to too much of their neighbors.

San Francisco’s interior is rotting to the core economically, financially, spiritually, and culturally, and the only difference between it and the more obvious big city liberal failures like Detroit is that the notorious left coast city has an exterior beauty that is – currently – beyond compare to most cities in America. But for how long?

I’m not one of those conservatives who want popular singers to “shut up and sing”, or want award-winning actors and actresses to “shut up and act.” For one thing, I know some there are some darned smart Hollywood conservatives out there like “Chuck” actor Adam S. Baldwin (currently ripping Alec Baldwin – no relation – a new one) who have strong, intelligent, thoughtful voices that need to be heard and heard often. And even though I often strongly disagree with much of what Hollywood liberals have to offer in the way of “enlightened opinions”, I respect their right to express them and in the process make complete a**ses out of themselves on a routine basis, exposing themselves as among the most hateful, intolerant “tolerant” leftists on the planet (see Roseanne Barr, for example, for more) .

Actress Ashley Judd is no exception to that rule.

Judd, who proudly admits to being a staunchly “pro-choice feminist”, recently sat down for an interview for Meet the Press’s “Press Pass”and in one quote told us everything we need to know about who she is and her thought process when it comes to political candidates and policy (bolded emphasis added by me):

“I think that he is a powerful leader, I think that he is a brilliant man I think that he has an incredible devotion to our Constitution, and that he is now able to flower more as the president I knew he could be,” Judd said about Obama.

Uh … “incredible devotion to our Constitution”? Er, yeah. OK.

For laughs, I link to you a bonus quote from Judd, which brings back to mind something I said about militant feminists recently. Here she is in that same interview on her initial disappointment with Obama, what brought her back to his camp — and what she feels would bring women voters to the polls in the fall to vote for him (bolded emphasis added by me):

The actress and political activist was asked by “Meet the Press” host David Gregory on NBC’s “Press Pass” web showwhether she has been disappointed by Obama since he won election in 2008: “To a certain extent I was for the first couple of years. But I also know that President Obama came in inheriting an extraordinary mess, and did his absolute best to do triage… And now I’m pretty fired up again, you know, and I think that he is a powerful leader.”

[…]

The 44-year-old celeb, who was selected as an official delegate for Tennessee at the Democratic National Convention in September, offered her thoughts on what would drive women to the voting booths come November, saying, “As long as the Republicans keep doing really dumb things about women’s reproductive health, that should help energize girls and women in this country.”

Ah yes. He was a huge disappointment for a couple of years, but he’ll save womyn from big bad evil Republicans who wanna keep ‘em poor, barefoot, sick, pregnant, and in the kitchen! As I said a few weeks ago about “feminists” and men:

“Feminists” should be outraged over [Julia], but they’re not. And won’t be. It’s funny. They’ll tell you they “don’t need a man” but that’s not true at all. They’ll always turn to Uncle Sam … their leader/hero/savior/sugar daddy. Over and over and over again. .

Case in point, Ms. Judd.

Toldjah so.

Cross-posted to Public Secrets, where I’m helping out while Phineas is on jury duty.

SAN RAFAEL, Calif. — In 1978, a year after “Star Wars” was released, George Lucas began building his movie production company far from Hollywood, in the quiet hills and valley of Marin County here just north of San Francisco. Starting with Skywalker Ranch, the various pieces of Lucasfilm came together over the decades behind the large trees on his 6,100-acre property, invisible from the single two-lane road that snakes through the area.

And even as his fame grew, Mr. Lucas earned his neighbors’ respect through his discretion. Marin, one of America’s richest counties, liked it that way.

But after spending years and millions of dollars, Mr. Lucas abruptly canceled plans recently for the third, and most likely last, major expansion, citing community opposition. An emotional statement posted onlinesaid Lucasfilm would build instead in a place “that sees us as a creative asset, not as an evil empire.”

If the announcement took Marin by surprise, it was nothing compared with what came next. Mr. Lucas said he would sell the land to a developer to bring “low income housing” here.

“It’s inciting class warfare,” said Carolyn Lenert, head of the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents.

Mr. Lucas said in an e-mail that he only wanted “to do something good for Marin,” waving away accusations of ulterior motives.

“I’ve been surprised to see some people characterize this as vindictive,” he said, adding that there was a “real need” for affordable housing here. “I wouldn’t waste my time or money just to try and upset the neighbors.”

Whatever Mr. Lucas’s intentions, his announcement has unsettled a county whose famously liberal politics often sits uncomfortably with the issue of low-cost housing and where battles have been fought over such construction before. His proposal has pitted neighbor against neighbor, who, after failed peacemaking efforts over local artisanal cheese and wine, traded accusations in the local newspaper.

The staunchest opponents of Lucasfilm’s expansion are now being accused of driving away the filmmaker and opening the door to a low-income housing development. That has created an atmosphere that one opponent, who asked not to be identified, saying she feared for her safety, described as “sheer terror” and likened to “Syria.”

Carl Fricke, a board member of the Lucas Valley Estates Homeowners Association, which represents houses nearest to the Lucas property, said: “We got letters saying, ‘You guys are going to get what you deserve. You’re going to bring drug dealers, all this crime and lowlife in here.’ ”

For those of you who don’t know much about Marin County, CA – it’s political make-up is not just left leaning. It is dominated by liberals:

Marin County tended to vote Republican for most of the 20th century (from 1948 to 1980, the only Democrat to win there was Lyndon Johnson in 1964). However, the county has become a stronghold of the Democratic Party in recent decades. Out of California counties, only San Francisco County and Alameda County voted more Democratic in the 2008 Presidential election, all three counties voted more heavily for Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama than Cook County, Ill., Obama’s home county.

[…]

According to the California Secretary of State, as of January 5, 2010, Marin County has 148,723 registered voters, out of 181,918 eligible (81.75%). Of those, 81,589 (54.86%) are registered Democrats, 29,088 (19.56%) are registered Republicans, 6,141 (4.13%) are registered with other political parties, and 31,905 (21.45%) have declined to state a political party.

San Rafael is a stronghold of the Democratic Party. As of January 5, 2010, there were 28,169 registered voters in San Rafael, of which 15,646 (55.54%) were Democrats, 5,516 (19.58%) were Republicans and 5,932 (21.06%) declined to state a political party.

Now, speaking from a non-political perspective, I can certainly understand their concerns about the possibility for crime escalation, not to mention property values taking a hit. But looking at this from the viewpoint of a conservative Republican who has – along other conservatives across this country – been slammed for years by bleeding heart liberal Democrats as turning our noses up at the poor, I have to laugh at all the drama going on in Marin County between Democrats over the very thought (horrors!) of low income housing being built in the liberal haven of San Rafael.

What happened to the spirit of “diversity” and “peace, love and harmony”, anyway?

Senator Patty Murray on the floor of the US Senate. Source: Patty Murray.

… but this picture speaks just a few short, sweet, and simple words to me: Senator Murray: You. are. a. liar.

The photo, in case you can’t tell, shows the first panel at Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) hearing on religious freedoms, which are under attack by rabid feminista Democrat politicos like Minority “Leader” Nancy Pelosi and other like-minded liberal women who are more beholden to the lucrative abortion lobby than they are the United States Constitution – as I discussed yesterday at length. What Murray did not display on the floor of the US Senate today – nor mentioned in her fauxtraged speech she gave alongside her photo display was the fact that the second panel, again as noted yesterday, had two women on it. As is Standard Operating Procedure with the far left, though, facts should never get in the way of a good ol’ manipulative rant. From Murray’s floor remarks (bolded emphasis added by me):

“Mr. President, for millions of American women, reading the news this morning was like stepping into a time machine and traveling back 50 years.

“First, there was this. A panel from an oversight hearing held in the House yesterday on women’s access to birth control.

“The only thing was….there weren’t any women.

“It turns out that the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee decided that he wouldn’t allow a young woman who had been asked by the minority to testify to tell her story.

“The story of a friend who she said lost an ovary due to a lack of contraception coverage.

“So this 19 year old woman was left to watch – just like all of the rest of us – as five men addressed the committee about how they supported efforts to restrict access to care.

“I’m sure by now many of my colleagues here have seen the picture of this all-male hearing.

“It’s a picture that says a thousand words. And it’s one that most women thought they left behind when pictures only came in black and white.

Gotta love the doomsday imagery her quotes bring up to days gone by when women had a lot less freedom than then they do today. That’s the point, of course. Emotional manipulation is the left’s stock and trade, especially on their “signature issues” – like abortion.

Hmm – I see two women on that panel. Don’t they count? Well, no, because they don’t march lock step in line with “feminists” in this country who think access to birth control is a “civil right” that trumps your right to freedom of religious expression.

Murray also lied about something else (surprise). Yesterday’s hearing was NOT about “women’s access to birth control” – a point well-made by Commentary’s Peter Wehner:

For one thing, the rule in question isn’t simply about contraception; it also covers sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. But more important is this: This issue is significant not because it involves, in part, the matter of contraception (which I happen to support), but the more fundamental issue of religious liberty. It has to do with the federal government being the aggressor in the so-called culture wars and inserting itself into the internal life of the church and religious institutions. That’s why Protestants who aren’t troubled by contraception have expressed solidarity with Catholics who do.

The Obama administration has an overwhelming political interest in framing this issue as one having to do with contraception rather than religious liberties. And not surprisingly, most of the press is in lockstep with Obama. We’re seeing dueling narratives play out, and most of the press corps has an obvious stake in promoting one at the expense of the other.

You betcha.

It’s interesting. I can’t tell you the number of retweets I saw yesterday from reliable “feminist groups” like Planned Parenthood, who RT’d tweets from liberal women about the so-called “bias” and “shame” of Issa’s panel for “not including women on a panel about birth control.” The truth is, though, that it was neither a panel about birth control, nor did the panel exclude women. Unfortunately, Murray and others like her who don’t give a half a damn about actual inconvenient TRUTHS like the ones I’ve pointed out have been able to successfully manipulate hundreds of thousands of women – with the aid of a complicit mainstream media – into believing that Issa is a sexist pig because he “refused” to have any women on his “birth control panel.”

For decades, liberal women have (falsely) asserted that conservative women can’t help the way they think because they’re allegedly “mindlessly subservient to the patriarchy.” The REAL facts here tell a much different, sadder story: It’s liberal women who are subservient – to each other – because they clearly cannot function without the assistance of opportunistic Democrat women in positions of high power who are spoonfeeding them stereotypical lies about their political opposition — all at the expense of both the unborn and the US Constitution.

Actor Samuel L. Jackson put politics aside when casting his vote for Barack Obama in 2008 and made his decision based on race.

“I voted for Barack because he was black. ’Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them,” the actor recently told Ebony magazine via Page Six. “That’s American politics, pure and simple. [Obama’s] message didn’t mean [bleep] to me.”

[…]

“I just hoped he would do some of what he said he was gonna do,” Jackson said. “I know politicians say [bleep]; they lie. ’Cuz they want to get elected.”

Dropping the N-word many times, Jackson added, “When it comes down to it, they wouldn’t have elected a [bleep]. Because, what’s a [bleep]? A [bleep] is scary. Obama ain’t scary at all. [Bleeps] don’t have beers at the White House. [Bleeps] don’t let some white dude, while you in the middle of a speech, call [him] a liar. A [bleep] would have stopped the meeting right there and said, ‘Who the [bleep] said that?’ I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years, ’cuz he ain’t gotta worry about getting re-elected.”

That video in and of itself provides Jackson with yet another award-caliber acting performance, especially considering his recent admission to Ebony Magazine, which is read by millions of black people across America. What a role model for empowering black people everywhere. Not.

LOS ANGELES (CBS) — The City of Los Angeles reportedly faces millions of dollars in expenses brought about by the Occupy LA movement.

City agencies have been ordered to calculate what was spent on the Occupy LA protests.

Repairs to City Hall’s lawn where the Occupy group set up camp on Oct. 1 will require an estimated $400,000. The police action to clear out the encampment on Nov. 30 cost more than $700,000.

Additional expenses are attributed to hauling away debris from the camp, and cleaning up graffiti that defaced City Hall marble walls and trees.

Mayor Villaraigosa says more budget cuts will be necessary to offset the costs.

Why the heck don’t they bill Occupy Wall Street for this instead of stiffing LA taxpayers (again)? They’re rolling in the dough, although not enough to cover the full costs of the destruction Occupy LA brought to city streets/lawns/etc, but it’s a start. You know just as well as I do that if the Tea Party cost LA even a fraction of this money they’d be billed for it and payment demanded. It’s also worth pointing out that if the city’s Mayor hadn’t wasted the time he did waiting to clear the camp in the first place the cost wouldn’t be near what it turned out to be.

Yup, you heard correctly. This [Friday] morning, Whoopi Goldberg, the Oscar-winning co-host on “The View” let nature take its course as the rest of the gang were interviewing Golden Globe-nominee Claire Danes.

The “Homeland” actress was chatting about her acclaimed Showtime series when we heard a certain WHOOPI CUSHION let loose.

As the rest of the panel, Danes and the audience cracked up, Goldberg easily admitted, “Oh, excuse me! I think I just blew a little frog out of there!” […]

(CBS/AP) LOS ANGELES – American Airlines took to its Facebook page Wednesday to explain its actions after Alec Baldwin complained he was kicked off a flightfor playing a Scrabble-like game on his cell phone as the plane was about to depart from Los Angeles.

Without mentioning the “30 Rock” star by name, the airline said an “extremely vocal customer” declined to turn off his phone when asked to do so by a flight attendant.

The customer then stood up “with the seat belt light still on for departure” and took his phone into the plane’s lavatory, the company continued.

“He slammed the lavatory door so hard, the cockpit crew heard it and became alarmed, even with the cockpit door closed and locked,” the airline’s post said.

The passenger was extremely rude to the crew, calling them inappropriate names and using offensive language,” it continued. “Given the facts above, the passenger was removed from the flight and denied boarding.”

On Twitter, American Airlines said its flight attendants followed federal safety regulations regarding electronic devices.

Baldwin wrote on Twitter Tuesday that he was “reamed” by a flight attendant for playing the game “Words with Friends” while the plane sat at a gate at Los Angeles International Airport.

His spokesman, Matthew Hiltzik, added, “He loves ‘Words with Friends’ so much that he was willing to leave a plane for it.”

The actor boarded another American Airlines flight to New York after Tuesday’s incident, but tweeted that he wouldn’t fly with the airline again, despite the fact that they show “30 Rock” for in-flight entertainment.

He also took a jab at the airline’s flight attendants, tweeting, “Last flight w American. Where retired Catholic school gym teachers from the 1950’s find jobs as flight attendants.”

The actor has since deactivated his Twitter account.

Well, not exactly. It’s under a new name: @deactivated001. It’s currently listed as “suspended” – but like most egomaniacs who crave attention and mindless devotion, he’ll be back.

First off, I would like to apologize to the other passengers onboard the American Airlines flight that I was thrown off of yesterday. It was never my intention to inconvenience anyone with my “issue” with a certain flight attendant.

I suppose a part of my frustration lay with the fact that I had flown American for over 20 years and was brand loyal, in the extreme. The ticketing agents and Admiral’s Club staff have always been nothing but abundantly helpful to me, as I have flown hundreds of thousands of miles with the one carrier.

My confusion began when the flight, already a half hour behind schedule, boarded, the door closed, and we proceeded to sit at the gate for another fifteen minutes. I then did what I have nearly always done and that was to pull out my phone to complete any other messaging [NOTE from ST: This is a lie, as per Baldwin’s tweets from last night. He was playing “Words With Friends” on his cell phone.] I had to do before take off. In nearly all other instances, the flight attendants seemed to be unbothered by and said nothing about such activity, by me or anyone else, until we actually were pulling away from the gate.

In this case, while other people were still manipulating their own phones, this one employee singled me out to put my phone away. Afterward, we still sat at the gate. I pulled out my phone again, while others did the same. Again, I was singled out by this woman in the most unpleasant of tones. I guess the fact that this woman, who had decided to make some example of me, while everyone else was left undisturbed, did get the better of me.

However, I have learned a valuable lesson. Airlines in the US are struggling with fuel costs, labor costs, bankruptcies, you name it. It’s no secret that the level of service on US carriers has deteriorated to a point that would make Howard Hughes red-faced. Filthy planes, barely edible meals, cuts in jet service to less-traveled locations. One of the big changes, in my time, is in the increase of the post-9/11, paramilitary bearing of much of the air travel business. September 11th was a horrific day in the airline industry, yet in the wake of that event, I believe carriers and airports have used that as an excuse to make the air travel experience as inelegant as possible.

Most of the flight attendants I have ever encountered still have some remnant of the old idea of service. Add to that the notion that in this day and age, many people have a lot of important work to do, by phone, and would like to do so till the last possible minute. But there are many now who walk the aisles of an airplane with a whistle around their neck and a clipboard in their hands and they have made flying a Greyhound bus experience.

The lesson I’ve learned is to keep my phone off when the 1950’s gym teacher is on duty. That was my fault there, even though this trip was quite a bit different from so many others. But it is sad, I think, that you’ve got to fly overseas today in order to bring back what has been thrown overboard by US carriers in terms of common sense, style, and service.

Protesters returned to University of California, Davis on Monday, November 21, 2011, for another day of demonstrations after campus police officers pepper-sprayed a group of students in Davis, California.
(Manny Crisostomo/Sacramento Bee/MCT)

The now-infamous UC Davis pepper-spraying incident from 11-18 has become a rallying cry – a call to arms – for Occupiers nationwide as they seek to legitimize their entitlement movement partly by way of screaming “police brutality” over every single incident where the police have had to act to move belligerent protesters who refuse to not occupy – which was the case with UC Davis. The CS Monitor on what happened:

Police use of pepper spray to disperse “occupy” demonstrators at UC Davis has set off a firestorm of protest, the suspension of two officers, and calls for the school’s chancellor to resign.

Video of the incident at the University of California campus, showing demonstrators sitting peacefully on a sidewalk as officers sprayed them with a red mist of pepper spray at very close range, quickly went viral.

“I spoke with students this weekend, and I feel their outrage,” Chancellor Katehi said Sunday in a statement announcing that two officers had been put on administrative leave.

“I have also heard from an overwhelming number of students, faculty, staff and alumni from around the country,” she said. “I am deeply saddened that this happened on our campus, and as chancellor, I take full responsibility for the incident. However, I pledge to take the actions needed to ensure that this does not happen again. I feel very sorry for the harm our students were subjected to and I vow to work tirelessly to make the campus a more welcoming and safe place.”

Katehi said she is accelerating the timetable for a task force to investigate the events surrounding the arrests of 10 protesters Friday, including communications from the police to the administration, according to the university statement Sunday. She set a deadline of 30 days for the task force, which will include representatives of faculty, students and staff, to be chosen and convened this coming week.

What a surprise to find spineless, backtracking “leadership” at UC Davis. Astonishing, really, when you read about all the violent threats that UC regents have been under over the last few years for a whole host of typically selfish “me-first” liberal reasons like rising tuition rates, budget cuts, etc. But apparently that means nothing to Chancellor Katehi, who would rather have a high approval rating with the student body than actually possess a backbone and knees that don’t jerk.

Oh, as to the viral video of the pepper-spraying? Of course the context was completely left out. What’s been going viral is the one minute video showing the officer walking up and pepper-spraying the students who had locked arms and sat down, refusing to move – and, no, they weren’t “peaceful.” The context of five minutes before hands shows obnoxious juveniles in “adult” bodies sitting down with locked arms participating in “mic checks” with the rather large crowd, yelling at officers, etc. You also see the officers giving the crowd – and the sidewalk sitting morons – plenty of opportunity to get up to avoid being pepper-sprayed. They knew, everyone around them who saw the officers shaking the orange cans knew. But they stayed anyway. And they got sprayed.

Do I have any sympathy for these fools? No. I don’t. The police really didn’t have many other options to get the students to move short of dragging them kicking and screaming off the sidewalk to prevent them from “occupying.” In response, OWS’ favorite bullies, the Anons, have already “doxed” one of the officers by revealing personal information, including his home address and phone number, and are encouraging harassment and threats.

Again, it’s not a “free speech violation” to be told you can’t occupy. It’s a free speech violation to be told you can’t speak at all. Marching, chanting, etc – no problem. Occupying? A problem. And one that is growing, if troublesome communes like Occupy Oakland and Occupy Seattle are any indication. These thugs, aging hippies, and self-important college nitwits could learn a thing or two from Tea Party rallies, which effectively helped spread the message to politicians and other prominent political figures that they WILL be held accountable for their votes and actions. All of it was done without occupying and the general thuggery and violence that has become synonymous with it.

Lastly, 1 percenter Michael Moore weighs in with what is arguably the most laughable quote of the entire Occupy “movement”: “[T]he [UC Davis] images have resonated around the world in the same way the lone man standing in front of the tanks at Tiananmen Square resonated.”

*Head-desk.*

With all this in mind, make sure you read Derek A. Hunter’s “Generation Mutant: Occupiers are the Natural Spawn of the Progressive Movement” column from Sunday. It’s essential reading for those of you who, like me, are eager to learn everything you can about exactly who and what it is we’re up against. Here’s a sampling:

The “occupiers” are the post-digested remains of the natural journey through the intestinal tract of the metastasizing liberal ideology in education and pop culture.

The “millennials,” as they’re called, are the first generation spawned from the “progressive” idea of equal outcome disguised as equal opportunity. They are the “Participation Ribbon People” – a generation rewarded and praised simply for showing up. The result of social promotion, time-outs over spanking and the misguided concept that reward is deserved and not earned.

The movies, books and music these kids devoured portrayed business as evil and CEOs as thieves in suits whose wealth comes not from hard work but by exploiting the poor or selling dangerous and defective products to an unsuspecting population.

This generation grew up with “reality TV,” which is not, of course, realistic at all. It measures success as drinking more beers before you vomit than the next guy. A sex tape brings not embarrassment but celebrity status.

It might have seemed as if these children of entitlement treated rioting as an audition for the Jersey Shore, but they weren’t – although MTV was at Zuccotti Park recruiting candidates for “The Real World.”

The only thing more prevalent among the “occupiers” than body lice is their sense of entitlement. They’re entitled to forgiveness of the college loans they willingly took out. They can trespass on private property and stay as long as they like. They claim to represent the “99 percent” of the country not among the wealthiest 1 percent. But do they?

[…]

Nothing undermines civil society more than the belief that every thought is correct, that every desire should be fulfilled. It doesn’t work that way, of course. And when people discover their every whim won’t be met, they find scapegoats.

Zuccotti Park has been filled with people who’ve been coddled their whole lives, who’ve never been told they’re wrong, who’ve been raised to pursue feeling over logic. They’re being confronted with an uncertain future, and its doubly scary for them because they never have been allowed to face the consequences of failure.

They’ve been encased in an emotional bubble-wrap that protected them from reality until graduation. They’ve never truly faced failure. They got a ribbon or trophy every time. Now, suddenly, someone won’t hire them or promote them or give them a good apartment at a low price. What’s worse, someone else did get that job, that promotion. That someone must have cheated.